Tuesday, November 25, 2008

Shabir Ally on the Satanic Verses

Most of what Shabir said about the Satanic Verses in this video is correct, and it seems he's better informed than most Muslims on this issue. I have a few comments.

(1) Shabir says that these narratives were put into circulation "much later." If by "much later" he means "very early," then I agree. Islam's earliest scholars and historians supported this event.

(2) The host asks Shabir why someone would fabricate such a story. Shabir could offer no reason. And that's crucial. Muslims had reasons for inventing miracle stories about Muhammad (this helped them in their evangelism efforts). Sunnis and Shias had reasons for inventing stories that helped their positions (e.g. "Here's a story saying that Muhammad liked Abu Bakr best). But why on earth would several Muslims independently invent stories about their prophet delivering a revelation from Satan? We can't even conceive of a reason, which means that the only explanation for the data is that the stories are true.

(3) Shabir claims that, since the event supposedly occurred during the Meccan period, people like Ibn Abbas would have been dealing with second-hand information. Really? Ibn Abbas knew many, many people who would have been present in Mecca when Muhammad delivered the Satanic Verses. Would he really not be able to determine the truth? Moreover, does anyone think that Ibn Abbas was so incredibly sloppy that he wouldn't have investigated this story before passing it on? The same may be asked about the other first-century sources.

(4) Shabir argues that Muhammad couldn't have delivered the Satanic Verse because this would have destroyed his credibility in the eyes of his followers. It would "spell the end of his career." But this is simply false. Muhammad's followers knew that his original interpretation of his revelations was that he was possessed by a jinn. This didn't hurt his credibility. They knew that Muhammad was the victim of black magic. This didn't hurt his credibility. They knew that Muhammad received revelations that tended to satisfy his desires (e.g. extra wives and marrying his adopted son's wife). This didn't hurt his credibility. We also know that many of the early Muslim scholars believed in Muhammad, even though they also believed he had delivered the Satanic Verses. So does this answer succeed? Not at all.

32 comments:

I don't think the satanic verses story was meant to destroy his credibility because at the end of the story an angel corrects him. So if you take the story as whole it doesn't do anything to damage his claim to be a messenger of God.

David wrote: Ibn Abbas knew many, many people who would have been present in Mecca when Muhammad delivered the Satanic Verses. Would he really not be able to determine the truth? Moreover, does anyone think that Ibn Abbas was so incredibly sloppy that he wouldn't have investigated this story before passing it on? The same may be asked about the other first-century sources.

Notice how David says,"does anyone think that Ibn Abbas was so incredibly sloppy that he wouldn't have investigated this story before passing it on?,"

This seems more like an argument against the satanic verses.Why didn't Ibn Abbas give his source. This point casts doubt to whether or not Ibn Abbas was even transmitting it.

On top of that that people al tabari said that they work contained false reports. Since we see Ibn Abbas didn't give his source, and Al tabari said his works contain false narrations. Why should we accept the Satanic verses?

>>if you take the story as whole it doesn't do anything to damage his claim to be a messenger of God.

Really? Wow - your standards are way lower than mine. I certainly wouldn't want a messenger of God who confuses Satan's messages with God's! Especially if Moses has told us to stone such people in Deut. 18!

I don't think you understand how Isnads work. Please watch my debate carefully; it will help.

Sa'id ibn Jubayr (one of Ibn Abbas's top students) passed on the story of the Satanic Verses. Someone would have asked: "Where did you get it, Sa'id?" Sa'id would have said, "From Ibn Abbas." That would have closed the case. Ibn Abbas was considered an authority, and no one considered him sloppy enough to pass on deceptive, fabricated stories about Muhammad.

Why didn't ibn Abbas name his source? Because the story was common knowledge in the early Muslim community. Everyone knew about it. It's like asking me, "David, how do you know that Neil Armstrong walked on the moon?" I know because this knowledge is part of my community.

(4) Shabir argues that Muhammad couldn't have delivered the Satanic Verse because this would have destroyed his credibility in the eyes of his followers. It would "spell the end of his career."

Shabir's argument deals with the immediate ramifications of a polytheistic message to the Muslims who heard it - he argues that they would immediately have recognized this as a contradiction to previous teachings and thus they would view Muhammad with less credibility.

I would agree with Shabir except for the issues of abrogation and progressive revelation. I think that these doctrines distorted the climate of early Islam and made it exceedingly difficult for people to judge anything Muhammad said. No wonder they just bowed down when Muhammad revealed the satanic verses - that's the only thing they could do no matter what was revealed.

Nabeel, It says to kill people who speak in the name of another God. I f we were to take deuteronomy 18 to determine false prophets. The biblical Jesus would fail the criteria because one he died, and he spoke in the name of another God(the Jews never worshiped the father the sun, and the holy spirit), and besides Muslims believe the bible is corrupted.

David said:Sa'id ibn Jubayr (one of Ibn Abbas's top students) passed on the story of the Satanic Verses. Someone would have asked: "Where did you get it, Sa'id?" Sa'id would have said, "From Ibn Abbas." That would have closed the case.

No it wouldn't have since he was only 3 years old during hijrah, he was to young. He had to have got it from someone else because he couldn't remember an event when he was that young.

So I'd ask Al Tabari if he knows Ibn Abbas's source. He would say that he doesn't know, he was just passing it on as he was told it. I would walk away suspecting that this was fabricated after the prophet's and Ibn Abbas's time because there is a gap in the transmitters.

Once again, you've missed the point. Yes, Ibn Abbas must have received the material from someone else. But we have to ask: Was Ibn Abbas the sort of person who would pass on a completely false report about Muhammad without making an effort to verify it? No, he wasn't. (Please tell me if you think that Ibn Abbas was untrustworthy.) We can conclude that he wouldn't have passed on the Satanic Verses unless he was sure of what he was writing. And we can say the same thing about the other early transmitters. They were scholars who were known for their knowledge and accuracy. Are you saying that all of them passed on a completely false story without checking their facts? Are you telling us that your earliest Muslim scholars were totally sloppy? Keep in mind the fact that these men were transmitters of many ahadith in al-Bukhari and al-Muslim. If you think they're horribly sloppy, how can we trust anything they transmitted?

And please respond to my objection to your methodology. Certain things are known by communities. I know that Neil Armstrong walked on the moon, not because of any specific person, but because this is common knowledge. The Satanic Verses incident was common knowledge in the early Muslim community. We know this because we have so many people passing on the story.

I conclude that you have no reasonable objection to the fact that Muhammad delivered these words.

Sup said: Nabeel, It says to kill people who speak in the name of another God. If we were to take deuteronomy 18 to determine false prophets. The biblical Jesus would fail the criteria because one he died, and he spoke in the name of another God(the Jews never worshiped the father the sun, and the holy spirit), and besides Muslims believe the bible is corrupted.

Deuteronomy 18:20 gives us two criteria for spotting a false prophet: (1) promoting polytheism, and (2) delivering a false revelation. Muhammad did both when he delivered the Satanic Verses. Jesus did neither, since all of His revelations were true and Christianity is monotheistic. Thus, according to Moses, Muhammad would have to die as a false prophet.

You say that Muslims believe the Bible has been corrupted. Do you have any evidence that Deuteronomy 18:20 was corrupted? Please share it with us, unless you're happy making unsubtstantiated assertions.

In Sunan Abu Dawud 4434, Muhammad put his hand on a copy of the Torah and swore that it's the Word of God. So the Torah at the time of Muhammad was the word of God. And we know what the Torah said during the time of Muhammad. It contained Deuteronomy 18:20. Moreover, Muslims often appeal to Deuteronomy 18:18-19 as their main prophecy about Muhammad. It would be quite odd to point to 18:18-19 as a revelation from God, and then to turn around and say that 18:20 has been corrupted, especially when you have absolutely no evidence to support your claim.

So here's what we have.

(1) Muhammad declared that the Torah is the Word of God.(2) According to the Torah, anyone who promotes polytheism or delivers a false revelation is a false prophet who should be put to death.(3) According to many of Islam's earliest scholars and historians, Muhammad promoted polytheism and delivered a false revelation.(4) Thus, Muhammad was a false prophet who would have been stoned to death by Moses.

"On top of that that people al tabari said that they work contained false reports. Since we see Ibn Abbas didn't give his source, and Al tabari said his works contain false narrations. Why should we accept the Satanic verses?"

Sup,

Although Tabari states that his reports MIGHT contain false narrations (he said there MIGHT be doubtful stories in it, not that there absolutely were false stories there) how do you know that the case of the Satanic Verses was one of the false ones? You simply assume that it is. But if Tabari was pointing us to a dubious story in his Takrith then it would have been the case of Ayesha and not the Satanic Verses. He faithfully quotes from the SV without blinking an eye, yet when it comes to the story of Ayesha, he goes out of his way to explain how he was only the messenger of that story and that if you don't like the message, don't shoot the messenger.

a Western-German convert to Islam, now a renown professor in Islamics in Germany has declared that all his research in the history of Islam provides evidence that Muhammad never existed; and most important he still claims to be a Muslim; the Muslim community in Germany is in chok.

To summarize it:

He is a convert to IslamHas studied Islam since the age of 15 now a professor in Islam Is still a Muslim (according to himself) but rejects the existence of Muhammad

David, I'm not saying Ibn Abbas revealed the stanic verses. What I am saying is that if he did he wouldn't have been so sloppy to have not named his source.

David wrote:And please respond to my objection to your methodology. Certain things are known by communities. I know that Neil Armstrong walked on the moon, not because of any specific person, but because this is common knowledge. The Satanic Verses incident was common knowledge in the early Muslim community. We know this because we have so many people passing on the story.

I don't think the Neil Armstrong analogy would be true since oral traditions were not the way of passing at his time because you have stuff like video tapes. As for the Satanic verses being common knowledge, that argument rests on the assumption that the people who were said to have transmitted the story were actually transmitting it

Deuteronomy 18:20 gives us two criteria for spotting a false prophet: (1) promoting polytheism, and (2) delivering a false revelation. Muhammad did both when he delivered the Satanic Verses. Jesus did neither, since all of His revelations were true and Christianity is monotheistic. Thus, according to Moses, Muhammad would have to die as a false prophet.

Here what the verse says:

But the prophet, that shall speak a word presumptuously in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die.

I hate to tell you something David, but Jews consider you religion polytheistic, and when you read the verse carefully it says the prophet shall die. Guess what the biblical Jesus died so he fits the criteria in Deuteronomy.

You said: I hate to tell you something David, but Jews consider you religion polytheistic, and when you read the verse carefully it says the prophet shall die. Guess what the biblical Jesus died so he fits the criteria in Deuteronomy.

Which Jews? Messianic Jews? They believe in the Trinity (though they call God a "compound unity"). Or do you mean Jews who reject Jesus? What does that mean? Jews who reject Jesus believe that he was a false Messiah. Are you telling me that I should agree with them? You've just insulted the Messiah, Sup.

My friend, anyone who says that Christianity is polytheistic simply doesn't want to understand Christianity. I know you want to attack us to get the focus off of Muhammad's lapse into polytheism, but you're getting awfully desperate.

Then you go on to give the most absurd interpretation of any verse that any Muslim has ever given. When Moses says, "That prophet shall die," that's how Moses commands that someone shall be stoned to death. But you've interpreted Moses' claim as follows: "Anyone who dies is a false prophet." Are you really so desperate that you would massacre Moses' words in this manner? Have you no shame? Do you have no respect for one of God's greatest prophets? Guess what, Sup. Muhammad died too. So according to your interpretation, Muhammad, and Adam, and Noah, and Abraham, and David, were all false prophets. You're so desperate to attack Christianity that you don't mind insulting all of your prophets in the process!

You said: "These are based off fabricated reports, and unreliable transmitters."

You obviously haven't paid attention to the reports. I suggest again that you do a little research before you shout your views from the rooftops. Explain to me why the six chains that go back to Ibn Abbas are all fabricated. Then please address the Sahih Mursal reports that go back to three of Islam's greatest first-century scholars.

Sup said: "As for the Satanic verses being common knowledge, that argument rests on the assumption that the people who were said to have transmitted the story were actually transmitting it"

Well, then, case closed. Eight or nine of the chains are "Sahih Mursal." This means that we know that several of the early Muslim scholars were transmitting the story independently. This shows that the Satanic Verses incident was common knowledge, and you've been refuted by your own criterion.

Which Jews? Messianic Jews? They believe in the Trinity (though they call God a "compound unity"). Or do you mean Jews who reject Jesus? What does that mean? Jews who reject Jesus believe that he was a false Messiah. Are you telling me that I should agree with them? You've just insulted the Messiah, Sup.

I know messianic Jews believe in the trinity, but it's not mentioned explicitly in the old testament. There's no basis for that belief. I didn't insult the messiah because I believe he taught strict jewish monotheism, and I believe you are attributing false words to him.

David said:

But you've interpreted Moses' claim as follows: "Anyone who dies is a false prophet."

No I haven't I'm saying if someone dies and speaks in the name of another God he is a false prophet.

David wrote:

You obviously haven't paid attention to the reports. I suggest again that you do a little research before you shout your views from the rooftops. Explain to me why the six chains that go back to Ibn .Abbas are all fabricated. Then please address the Sahih Mursal reports that go back to three of Islam's greatest first-century scholars.

My views are based on the multiple analysis of the most scholars of Islam. Also I'm not saying Ibn Abbas actually reported this. They're fabricated because Ibn Abbas couldn't have witnessed the story since it is from the Meccan period

David wrote:

Well, then, case closed. Eight or nine of the chains are "Sahih Mursal." This means that we know that several of the early Muslim scholars were transmitting the story independently. This shows that the Satanic Verses incident was common knowledge, and you've been refuted by your own criterion.

No It's not because if Ibn Abbas transmitted the story he would have given source, that's one of my reasons for not believing he actually transmitted it. Another one of My reasons is that Al tabari said his reports contain false narrations. I'm using 2 factors, not just that Ibn Abbas didn't give his source.

Sup said: "I know messianic Jews believe in the trinity, but it's not mentioned explicitly in the old testament. There's no basis for that belief. I didn't insult the messiah because I believe he taught strict jewish monotheism, and I believe you are attributing false words to him."

Lots of things aren't mentioned explicitly in the Old Testament. Does this make them false? According to you, Muslims are wrong for circling the Ka'ba, since this isn't mentioned in the Old Testament. Like it or not, the Incarnation is mentioned in the OT. Read Isaiah 9:6.

So you can't rule out something simply because it's not explicitly mentioned in the OT. Your original criticism was that Christianity is polytheistic, and your claim simply shows your ignorance of Christianity.

As for insulting the Messiah, you once again missed my point. Your claim was that we must go to non-Christian Jews for our beliefs about Jesus. Yet non-Christian Jews reject Jesus as the Messiah. So, if you're consistent (which you're not), you would have to reject Jesus as the Messiah. Do you see where your methodology leads?

Sup said: "I'm saying if someone dies and speaks in the name of another God he is a false prophet."

Concerning your clearly flawed interpretation of Deuteronomy 18:20, I'll allow it. If a prophet speaks in the name of other gods, and dies, that person is a false prophet. Well, Muhammad spoke in the name of other gods, and he died. So according to you, he's a false prophet. I agree. But Jesus never spoke in the name of false gods.

Sup said: "My views are based on the multiple analysis of the most scholars of Islam. Also I'm not saying Ibn Abbas actually reported this. They're fabricated because Ibn Abbas couldn't have witnessed the story since it is from the Meccan period."

Show me that the Isnads have been fabricated. Give me evidence. And notice what you've said here. "I'm just going with what Muslim scholars say." Would you accept this as a response from a Christian? If you found early evidence that Jesus was merely a prophet, and all of this evidence came from Jesus' followers, and you brought it to me, would you be impressed if I said: "Well, Christian scholars reject all of your evidence. I'm just going with whatever Christian scholars say." You wouldn't accept this for a second. And yet this is exactly how you have to defend your absurd position. Like it or not, your earliest scholars defended the Satanic Verses. Later Muslims rejected them. You go with the later Muslims, long after the events. I go with the ones who actually knew the companions.

Sup said: "No It's not because if Ibn Abbas transmitted the story he would have given source, that's one of my reasons for not believing he actually transmitted it. Another one of My reasons is that Al tabari said his reports contain false narrations. I'm using 2 factors, not just that Ibn Abbas didn't give his source."

It's like I'm talking to a wall. Prove to me that Ibn Abbas wouldn't have passed on a story that everyone knew without citing a specific person. Quit saying it and give me some actual evidence. We have 37 sources for the Satanic Verses. What are the odds that so many Muslims transmitters fabricated the same story? As for al-Tabari, this is a non-issue, since the sources I'm appealing to are much earlier than al-Tabari. But I'll respond anyway. al-Tabari distinguishes between unreliable and reliable material. When he thinks something is doubtful, he says so. The Satanic Verses story is not in doubt.

Just think about your reasoning for a moment. It goes like this. "Al-Tabari says that some of the material in his work may be wrong. Therefore, everything is wrong." And here's the problem. Al-Bukhari and al-Muslim also included some weak narrations. Does this mean that all of Sahih al-Bukhari is weak? I just can't figure out how the Muslim mind works. It's as if the laws of logic fly out the window.

So what do we have so far? You've said that we should go with the views of non-Christian Jews, and here you've declared that Jesus wasn't the Messiah. You've declared that anyone who speaks in the name of false gods and dies is a false prophet, and Muhammad did both. Thus, according to your standards, Muhammad was a false prophet. And you've said that if a book contains any weak material, everything in the book is weak. Thus, you've thrown out Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim.

Lots of things aren't mentioned explicitly in the Old Testament. Does this make them false? According to you, Muslims are wrong for circling the Ka'ba, since this isn't mentioned in the Old Testament. Like it or not, the Incarnation is mentioned in the OT. Read Isaiah 9:6.

Yeah I know, but the old testament talks about the concept of god allot. So why isn't the trinity found there? As for Isaiah 9:6 I can't go into all the details, but people in the old testament were called father(genesis 4:21) it's not meant to be taking literally. For a more detailed response see this link.

Davis said: As for insulting the Messiah, you once again missed my point. Your claim was that we must go to non-Christian Jews for our beliefs about Jesus. Yet non-Christian Jews reject Jesus as the Messiah. So, if you're consistent (which you're not), you would have to reject Jesus as the Messiah. Do you see where your methodology leads?

No I want you to go to Jewish views for the BIBLICAL Jesus because you share old testament with them, and I think they would know best since it was revealed to them.

David said:

Show me that the Isnads have been fabricated. Give me evidence. And notice what you've said here. "I'm just going with what Muslim scholars say."

The reason why I accept what the scholars is because I've read their opinions and found the evidence convincing. As for the evidence one the transmitters is Al waqidi. Do you have any idea who this person is, and how many times he has been condemned as fabricator of stories? So if we use the hadith methodology the story is fabricated.

David said:

It's like I'm talking to a wall. Prove to me that Ibn Abbas wouldn't have passed on a story that everyone knew without citing a specific person.

If a tradition is to be considered authentic their can be no time gap, and if Ibn Abbas didn't give the person who was in the time gap. Then that puts doubt on to whether or not he even transmitted the story

David wrote:

We have 37 sources for the Satanic Verses. What are the odds that so many Muslims transmitters fabricated the same story.

David, just because you report a fabricated story doesn't mean you are the one who fabricated it.

David wrote:

Just think about your reasoning for a moment. It goes like this. "Al-Tabari says that some of the material in his work may be wrong. Therefore, everything is wrong." And here's the problem. Al-Bukhari and al-Muslim also included some weak narrations. Does this mean that all of Sahih al-Bukhari is weak? I just can't figure out how the Muslim mind works. It's as if the laws of logic fly out the window.

Remember Al Tabari said if you find objectionable material it is not to be attributed to him.People like you can't put us in a position to attack Al tabari because he says he holds no responsibility for objectionable material.

Sup said: Yeah I know, but the old testament talks about the concept of god allot. So why isn't the trinity found there? As for Isaiah 9:6 I can't go into all the details, but people in the old testament were called father(genesis 4:21) it's not meant to be taking literally. For a more detailed response see this link.

Hmmm. So if the Old Testament talks about the concept of God without mentioning the Trinity, this is proof against the Trinity. But when the Bible supports the Christian view of the Trinity and the Incarnation, it shouldn't be taken literally. Sup, all you're doing is reading Islam back into the text. Show me where the Old Testament denies the Trinity, and then I'll think I've got a problem on my hands. As things stand, the OT proclaims monotheism, and Christianity doesn't deny this. Hence, our belief is consistent with the Old Testament teaching, even though we have a view based on more complete revelation. (It's absolutely hilarious that you cited a unitarian website to support your view. How about I cite an Ahmadi website to show you that Muhammad wasn't the last prophet.)

Sup said: "No I want you to go to Jewish views for the BIBLICAL Jesus because you share old testament with them, and I think they would know best since it was revealed to them."

The same conclusion follows. According to you, when it comes to Jesus, non-Christian Jews know best, since they received the Old Testament. But as I said, non-Christian Jews reject Jesus as the Messiah. Thus, according to you, Jesus must be rejected. How can you say this as a Muslim?

Sup said: "The reason why I accept what the scholars is because I've read their opinions and found the evidence convincing. As for the evidence one the transmitters is Al waqidi. Do you have any idea who this person is, and how many times he has been condemned as fabricator of stories? So if we use the hadith methodology the story is fabricated."

You've found the evidence convincing? Sup, anyone who reads your comments knows that you haven't examined the evidence at all. If you knew what you were talking about, you wouldn't be talking about Wakidi and al-Tabari, since the Muslims reporting the Satanic Verses come much earlier. If you had actually studied this issue (instead of blindly accepting what you're told to accept), you'd be dealing with claims that are actually relevant.

Sup said: "If a tradition is to be considered authentic their can be no time gap, and if Ibn Abbas didn't give the person who was in the time gap. Then that puts doubt on to whether or not he even transmitted the story"

So let me see if I can follow you here. According to your view, we know absolutely nothing about, say, Alexander the Great. You would agree with me, right? We don't have Isnads for the reports about his life; thus, we can't accept the reports. Don't you know that your methodology means that we can know virtually nothing about history? Please tell me if this is your view.

But once again, you've missed the point. We know, for a fact, that many of your earliest Muslim scholars were reporting the Satanic Verses. My explanation for this evidence is that Muhammad delivered the Satanic Verses. What's your explanation for the evidence? You can't just say, "I don't accept it." You have to explain why we have the evidence we have. Were the earliest Muslim historians a bunch of liars? Were they fools? Tell me what they were.

Sup said: "David, just because you report a fabricated story doesn't mean you are the one who fabricated it."

Ah! So you're saying that your earliest Muslim scholars got these narratives from other people. Great! Now where did they get these stories from? There's no way out of this mess, Sup. If you say your earliest scholars passed on false stories without investigating them, then you're telling me I can't trust your earliest scholars. If I can't trust your earliest scholars, how can I trust later collections of historical material?

Sup said: "Remember Al Tabari said if you find objectionable material it is not to be attributed to him.People like you can't put us in a position to attack Al tabari because he says he holds no responsibility for objectionable material."

You continue to misrepresent al-Tabari. His claim is simple: "If you find what I'm saying offensive, don't blame me. I'm just passing on the traditions that were handed down to me." And that's exactly the point. These traditions were handed down to al-Tabari, and we can trace the Isnads all the way back to the first century. So don't attack al-Tabari. Attack your earliest Muslim scholars and call them a bunch of liars. You're stuck with that, which means you don't know anything about your prophet.

Just to review:

(1) According to Sup's method, we have to reject Jesus as the Messiah.

(2) According to Sup, we have to reject all of ancient history, since we don't have Isnads. (BTW, Sup, this shows your ignorance again. Even the Hadith scholars didn't believe that historical reports should be rejected for lack of a complete Isnad. This is a modern Muslim view, and it's completely absurd.)

(3) According to Sup, the earliest Muslim historians passed on information without making any effort to verify it. Thus, they were extremely sloppy. Who can trust any Muslim claims about Muhammad?

Hmmm. So if the Old Testament talks about the concept of God without mentioning the Trinity, this is proof against the Trinity. But when the Bible supports the Christian view of the Trinity and the Incarnation, it shouldn't be taken literally. Sup, all you're doing is reading Islam back into the text. Show me where the Old Testament denies the Trinity, and then I'll think I've got a problem on my hands.

Yes it is proof because the passage in Deuteronomy 18 says that the prophet will speak in the name of other Gods. There is a commandment on this subject(Deuteronomy 6:4) guess what the trinity isn't mentioned there. This is troubling because this is a matter of heaven or hell, and God should be explicit on such issues(if he doesn't he is guilty deceiving every pre-Christianity Jew into believing strict monotheism). The reason why it shouldn't be taken literally is because other people are called Gods or fathers in the OT.

David wrote:

The same conclusion follows. According to you, when it comes to Jesus, non-Christian Jews know best, since they received the Old Testament. But as I said, non-Christian Jews reject Jesus as the Messiah. Thus, according to you, Jesus must be rejected. How can you say this as a Muslim?

In my earlier comment I made it clear that I was talking about the biblical Jesus.I don't think Jews should reject Jesus based off his sayings in the new testament because I believe they are unreliable, but I think It would be appropriate to reject the biblical Jesus based of his sayings in the New testament.

David wrote:

You've found the evidence convincing? Sup, anyone who reads your comments knows that you haven't examined the evidence at all. If you knew what you were talking about, you wouldn't be talking about Wakidi and al-Tabari, since the Muslims reporting the Satanic Verses come much earlier. If you had actually studied this issue (instead of blindly accepting what you're told to accept), you'd be dealing with claims that are actually relevant.

The earliest source you've got is Ibn Ishaq and once again he is not ascholar hadith he is a historian not a scholar of hadith. So I'm opposed to his methodology because I don't agree with the historical method because It accepts or rejects some thing based on what time period it is from.

David wrote:

Ah! So you're saying that your earliest Muslim scholars got these narratives from other people. Great! Now where did they get these stories from? There's no way out of this mess, Sup. If you say your earliest scholars passed on false stories without investigating them, then you're telling me I can't trust your earliest scholars. If I can't trust your earliest scholars, how can I trust later collections of historical material?

No, I'm saying that Our earliest scholars are having false words attributed to them. We have a method of determining truth from falsehood when it comes to Isnads. People like Ibn Ishaq, and Al tabari didn't use such methods.

David wrote:

You continue to misrepresent al-Tabari. His claim is simple: "If you find what I'm saying offensive, don't blame me. I'm just passing on the traditions that were handed down to me." And that's exactly the point. These traditions were handed down to al-Tabari, and we can trace the Isnads all the way back to the first century. So don't attack al-Tabari. Attack your earliest Muslim scholars and call them a bunch of liars. You're stuck with that, which means you don't know anything about your prophet.

I'm in no position to attack my earliest scholars(just to clarify when I say my earliest scholars I mean the prophets companions) because I believe that someone is attributing false words to them. Remember their is a method to determine what is true and what is false.

Sup said: "Yes it is proof because the passage in Deuteronomy 18 says that the prophet will speak in the name of other Gods. There is a commandment on this subject(Deuteronomy 6:4) guess what the trinity isn't mentioned there. This is troubling because this is a matter of heaven or hell, and God should be explicit on such issues(if he doesn't he is guilty deceiving every pre-Christianity Jew into believing strict monotheism).

You say the Trinity isn't mentioned there. Well, "Allah" isn't mentioned there either. What does this mean? Absolutely nothing. Again, the Old Testament affirms monotheism without denying Trinity, and certain passages only make sense in light of Trinitarian theology. Thus, no one is speaking in the names of other gods when they proclaim Trinity. But Muhammad did speak in the name of other gods when he delivered the Satanic Verses (I can't believe you're comparing Christian monotheism with al-lat, al-uzza, and Manat). Thus, Muhammad was a false prophet according to Moses.

Sup said: "The reason why it shouldn't be taken literally is because other people are called Gods or fathers in the OT."

It actually says, "Father of Eternity." Show me where someone other than God is called "Father of Eternity" in the Old Testament.

Sup said: "In my earlier comment I made it clear that I was talking about the biblical Jesus.I don't think Jews should reject Jesus based off his sayings in the new testament because I believe they are unreliable, but I think It would be appropriate to reject the biblical Jesus based of his sayings in the New testament."

No, you specifically said that Christianity is polytheistic because non-Christian Jews claim that it is polytheistic. (BTW, Jews who understand what we believe would never claim this.) Hence, you claimed that the deciding factor for our beliefs about Jesus is the position of non-Christian Jews, and you even said that they know best because they received the Old Testament. Thus, according to you, we should reject Jesus. Don't try to wriggle out of the obvious implications of your claims.

Sup said: "The earliest source you've got is Ibn Ishaq and once again he is not ascholar hadith he is a historian not a scholar of hadith. So I'm opposed to his methodology because I don't agree with the historical method because It accepts or rejects some thing based on what time period it is from."

Ah, so you mean the earliest actual book we possess. I was referring to the people that reported the Satanic Verses in the first century. I'm not interested in books right now. You say that Ibn Ishaq wasn't a hadith scholar. Right! He was a Sirah-Maghazi scholar! And what type of literature are we dealing with? Sirah-Maghazi literature. And yet you're trying to apply the standards of the Hadith scholars to Ibn Ishaq. Once again, you've shown that you don't know what you're talking about. Even the Hadith scholars understood and accepted the fact that the Sirah-Maghazi scholars had a different methodology. And yet you're going against the Hadith scholars by saying that their method is universal, which even they didn't claim. Sup, please explain to me how you came to know even more than the Hadith scholars you appeal to.

Sup said: "No, I'm saying that Our earliest scholars are having false words attributed to them. We have a method of determining truth from falsehood when it comes to Isnads. People like Ibn Ishaq, and Al tabari didn't use such methods."

Sup, how many times do I have to explain this? We have eight or nine Sahih Mursal reports that go back to early Muslim scholars. The chains are reliable even according to the standards of the Hadith scholars. So you can't say that false words are being attributed to people like Sa'id ibn Jubayr, because the chain to him is made up of completely reliable transmitters. All you can say is that Sa'id (one of Ibn Abbas's top students) was a liar or that he was a fool. If you say either one, you have to reject a lot of ahadith that were transmitted by him. Please learn your methodology.

Sup said: "I'm in no position to attack my earliest scholars(just to clarify when I say my earliest scholars I mean the prophets companions) because I believe that someone is attributing false words to them. Remember their is a method to determine what is true and what is false."

My point is (1) that you don't understand this method, (2) that you mistakenly think that it's the only method (which even the Hadith scholars did not believe), and (3) that you don't know what evidence you're dealing with. And yet you confidently proclaim your position, which is based on a complete lack of knowledge and understanding of the topic.

As I've said, you have no choice but to attack your earliest scholars. (I'm sorry, but the companions weren't scholars.) You have to say that they were a bunch of liars. And here's the key. If your first century scholars were a bunch of liars, how can you believe them when they pass on ahadith. In other words, if Muslim X is a liar (according to you), how can you trust Muslim X when he passes on a narration from a companion? To put it differently, if the early Muslim scholars would invent false stories about Muhammad, why wouldn't they invent false Isnads as well? Again, if you're right, we can know absolutely nothing about Muhammad.

Sup said: "The earliest source you've got is Ibn Ishaq and once again he is not ascholar hadith he is a historian not a scholar of hadith. So I'm opposed to his methodology because I don't agree with the historical method because It accepts or rejects some thing based on what time period it is from."

Let's put it another way. Your most authoritative scholar of Hadith, imam Bukhari, seems to support the story of the Satanic Verses of the "lying and untrustworthy first century A.H." transmitters. His hadith says:

"The Prophet performed a prostration when he finished reciting Surat an-Najm [Surah 53], and all the Muslims and Al-Mushrikun (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, and disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah and in His Messenger Muhammad) and jinn and human beings prostrated along with him. (4862)"

My question to you is, can you satisfactorily explain this prostration of ALL the pagans to Muhammads recital of an-Najm? Can you account for the prostration of the Mushrikun right then and there and them being hostile to Muhammads message later, apart from the Satanic Verses?

Your answer will determine the outcome of the debate on your prophet's recital of the SV.

You really don't want to take that line of argumentation, Sup. "Strict Jewish monotheism" in the 1st century a.d. involves adherence to the Torah. The idea of a Torah-observant Jesus absolutely refutes every Muslim notion about Jesus.

This notion of Jesus the Torah-observant Rabbi that you have presented as YOUR version of the historical Jesus, excludes not only the possibility of the Islamic Jesus (who went around preaching Islam), but it also refutes much of the picture painted in the Quran about Isa. Islam is not compatible with the Torah (even though Muhammad swore it was the very word of God, as recorded in Sunan Dawud).

Women in Islam

American Freedom Law Center

America

The Truth about CAIR

FAQ Page

On this website, we engage Muslims and the foundations of Islam without trying to be "PC". We feel honesty is better than disguised language. As you can read on our FAQ, this is out of love, not out of hatred. Thanks, and we're looking forward to seeing your comments!